Linda Finlay

“Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity

To increase the integrity and trustworthiness of qualitative research, researchers need to evaluate how intersubjective elements influence data collection and analysis. Reflexivity— where researchers engage in explicit, self-aware analysis of their own role—offers one tool for such evaluation. The process of engaging in reflexive analysis, however, is difficult, and its subjective, ambiguous nature is contested. In the face of challenges, researchers might retreat from engaging in the process. In this article, the author seeks to “out” the researcher’s presence by exploring the theory and practice of reflexivity. Examples from research illustrate its problematic potential.

‘Rigour’, ‘Ethical Integrity’ or ‘Artistry’? Reflexively Reviewing Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research

Qualitative researchers contest and reject the criteria used by quantitative researchers when evaluating their work: those of reliability, validity and generalisability. Instead, qualitative researchers have developed alternative criteria responsive to their specific research ideals. These criteria encompass various dimensions of ‘rigour’, ‘ethical integrity’ and ‘artistry’. This article attempts to show something of the range of evaluative criteria available to qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the special nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims and assumptions). Occupational therapists are encouraged to be clear, thoughtful and reflexive about their position and values when evaluating their research. To this end, recent occupational therapy research is reviewed to identify the criteria that authors favour. I also proffer my own reflexive voice towards critically evaluating my approach in this article.

Reflexivity: An Essential Component for All Research?

This article explains how reflexivity offers us a way to turn the problem of subjectivity in research into an opportunity. Examples of personal reflexivity, in the form of subjective analysis of some research encounters which have occurred during my own research, are presented to illustrate how the reflexive process can unfold new understandings. The discussion argues that personal and methodological reflexivity should be included as an element of every investigation (qualitative or quantitative) and that without it the validity of the research could be undermined.

Applying Phenomenology in Research: Problems, Principles and Practice

Interest in phenomenological research has been growing steadily over the last decade as researchers have sought to capture the richness of individual experience. However, the sheer complexity of ideas embedded within phenomenology is challenging. Confusions abound as to what phenomenology means, let alone how to apply it as a research method. Misconceptions and contradictions are apparent in the literature. This paper starts with a broad review of some current phenomenological literature relevant to occupational therapy. The key principles of the phenomenological approach are then clarified, followed by an exploration of how these might be applied practically in research.

Unfolding the Phenomenological Research Process Iterative Stages of “Seeing Afresh”

Phenomenological researchers generally agree that our central concern is to return to embodied, experiential meanings aiming for fresh, complex, rich description of phenomena as concretely lived. Yet when it comes to deciding how best to carry out this research in practice debates abound. Some approaches to phenomenology emphasize description; others interpretive layers. Some insist on a rigorous, scientific method; others seek more poetic, artistic flourish. In this article, the author offers preliminary thoughts about what unites seemingly divergent phenomenological research approaches. She suggests that the essence of the phenomenological research approach encompasses five mutually dependent and dynamically iterative processes: (a) embracing the phenomenological attitude, (b) entering the lifeworld (through descriptions of experiences), (c) dwelling with horizons of implicit meanings, (d) explicating the phenomenon holistically, and (e) integrating frames of reference. The author argues that studies that focus on experience are not necessarily phenomenological. The line being contested is the extent a study goes beyond subjectivity and into the broader realm of lifeworld experience.

The body's disclosure in phenomenological research

Phenomenologists would agree that the body discloses the world just as the world discloses itself through the body. Yet, in much phenomenological research, the focus is on words from transcripts and protocols – the body is strangely absent. In this article, I argue for the importance of researchers attending reflexively to the bodies of both participant and researcher. I advocate attending to the body and embodiment through at least three distinct, though connected, layers: bodily empathy, embodied self-awareness and embodied intersubjectivity. Examples from different research projects are offered to show how such analyses might be worked reflexively. The final discussion section raises some critical issues about pursuing research in this way and examines the practical challenges of engaging in reflexive bodily analysis.

Engaging Phenomenological Analysis

Phenomenologists seeking to explicate “lived experience” need above all to do justice to the phenomenon under study; research methods need to be responsive to the phenomenon, towards capturing something of its “is-ness.” This article aims to clarify some processes involved in doing phenomenological analysis, whatever the variant of phenomenology. A phenomenological sensibility is suggested rather than offering cookbook guidelines. Four key processes are identified: seeing afresh, dwelling, explicating, and languaging. Specific examples of research and writing are provided, with special attention to the principal phenomenological sources used in psychology: the “descriptive phenomenology” of Giorgi and Wertz, van Manen’s “hermeneutic phenomenology,” and Smith et al.’s “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” The article ends with my personal top ten tips for novice researchers.

The intertwining of body, self and world: A phenomenological study of living with recently-diagnosed multiple sclerosis

This paper describes the lifeworld of one individual, Ann, in an attempt to elucidate the existential impact of early stage multiple sclerosis. Drawing on Anns own reflections captured in a relatively unstructured interview, I construct a narrative around her first year of living with the diagnosis. Then, existential-phenomenological analysis reveals how Anns life - lived in and through a particular body and lifeworld context - is disrupted. The unity between her body and self can no longer be taken for granted. The existential possibilities inherent in her lived body are diminished and have to be renegotiated. Her sense of identity, project, relations with others and present/future plans are threatened. Anns illness is encountered in the context of her life activities and relationships. This is the intertwining of body, self and world. To live with multiple sclerosis is to experience a global sense of disorder - a disorder which incorporates a changed relation with ones body, a transformation in the surrounding world, a threat to the self, and a change in ones relation to others.

Evaluating Research Articles

This article offers guidelines on how to evaluate research articles. It examines the questions we should ask of each research report, namely: What is the context in which the research has been undertaken? How have the data been collected and analysed? How valid is the research, that is, do we trust it? And how effectively have the results been presented and written up? Good research articles are seen to: reflect and describe the research accurately; enable readers to follow what has been done and what led to the conclusion; and stimulate thought, discussion and debate. It is suggested that any article is approached critically, constructively and with realistic expectations.

“Can't Really Trust That, So What Can I Trust?”: A Polyvocal, Qualitative Analysis of the Psychology of Mistrust

This paper describes an experiment in carrying out, as a group, a phenomenological analysis of a qualitative interview on the topic of mistrust. One in-depth interview was analyzed phenomenologically by each of the six members of our group. We then shared and discussed our individual analyses to generate a consensual analysis. Finally, additional or divergent perspectives were offered by individual group members to add further contextual and reflexive dimensions. We consider what we gained from this exercise and the difficulties encountered. We also reflect on the insights into the topic of mistrust produced by our analyses.